proceeded to Rake together any more Instances and these may suffice to shew That these Epistles were not writ in those early Ages § 13. Thirdly The same may be proved from the many Absurdities found in these Decretals arguing the Author to be Illiterate and Ignorant Whereas the Popes whose Names they falsly bear were prudent and Learned Men however well skilled in Holy Scripture Yet Anacletus is made to say that the Apostles chose the LXX Disciples which the Gospel affirms were chosen by Christ himself He also weakly derives Cephas the Syriac Name of Peter signifying a Stone from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith it signifies a Head and proves Peter's Supremacy by this silly mistake It looks very ridiculously in Pope Antherus in his Epistle to say it is not fit for one in my Mean condition to judge others nor to say any thing of the Ministers of the Churches but indeed the Forger stole these Words out of S. Hieroms first Epistle to Heliodorus and foolishly applied them to the Pope The Decretal of Stephen tells the Gallican Church what the Holy Apostolic and Universal Church had undertaken to observe as if they had been no part of the Universal Church But nothing is more Ridiculous than the foolish Expositions of Scripture which Popes ought to interpret Infallibly but these Epistles make Pope Alexander prove that Holy-water doth sanctify by Heb. ix 13 14. where the Ashes of an Heifer are said to Purify the unclean and the Blood of Christ to purge the Conscience And he interprets Hos iv 8. where the Priests are said to eat up the Sins of the People of blotting out their Sins by their Prayers Pope Pius proves Bishops are only to be judged by God because John II. Christ drove the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple with his own hands Pope Anicetus proves Priests ought to shave their Crowns because S. Paul saith It is a shame for Men to have long hair 1 Cor. XI which the Apostle speaks of Lay-men as well as Clergy-men and so the same Logic would prove that Lay-men also should shave their Crowns Pope Soter proves that Nuns must not touch the Holy Vessels by S. Pauls saying 2 Cor. XI He had espoused the Corinthians both Men and Women to one Husband even Christ Pope Stephen proves That Bishops cught not to be disturbed by that place in the Psalms The Heavens declare the glory of God and the Firmament sheweth his handy work And to name no More Pope Foelix is very happy in that he can make out That we ought not to persecute and disturb Our Brethren from Rom. V. 1 2. When we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son And from Math. X. Fear not them which can kill the body c. he proves We must not persecute nor disturb Preachers and Doctors because their Souls do not dye with their Bodies All these impertinent Inferences from Holy Scripture shew the Forger of these Epistles was some ignorant and impudent Impostor but none can suppose those holy Primitive Bishops would abuse Scripture and themselves at this rate § 14. Fourthly this further appears From many Quotations in these Epistles which are taken verbatim out of Authors that lived and writ long after all these Popes were dead in whose Names these Epistles are forged wherefore they could not write them Now this infallible Mark of their Forgery appears first in that these Epistles do all generally cite Scripture according to S. Hieroms Translation which was not made in their days yet Clement in his 4th and 5th Epistles Euaristus in both his Epistles Telesphorus in his Decretal and indeed all the rest of them who have occasion to quote Scripture do use the very Words of S. Hierom and that sometimes for a whole Page together as the Reader will find by comparing these Quotations with the Vulgar Latin Bible But Learned Men know that the Latin Fathers who lived before S. Hierom's Translation was extant used another Version very different from that and even Pope Cornelius in that genuine Epistle of his which is preserved in S. Cyprian doth not follow S. Hierom's Translation but his Forged ones do Which is a Proof undeniable That he who Forged these Epistles lived after S. Hierom's Translation was grown common Besides Anacletus is made to cite a long Passage verbatim out of S. Hierom's Epistle to Nepotian which was writ almost 300 years after his time Pope Eleutherius cites a Law out of the Theodosian Code Judicantem cuncta rimari oportet c. which was made 300 years after this Popes death and this convinced Contius and Baronius that this Epistle was Forged after Theodosius his Reign yet Binius hath the Impudence to say Perhaps the Code borrowed this Passage from the Epistle but Labbé is so ashamed of this bold Falsehood that in his Margen he writes Binius in this is mistaken and he had reason for that Note since this is not the only place in the seigned Decretals where the Code is cited Labbé owns that the second forged Epistle for Pope Eutychianus quotes a Law verbatim out of Cod. Theod. lib. 9. Tit. 〈◊〉 2. Pope Zepherine also cites Imperial Laws and Edicts Forbidding Men to cite a Bishop despoiled of his goods into any Secular Judicature till all were restored the same Passage also is cited out of the Secular Laws in Pope Stephen's second Epistle But it is most certain there could be no such Laws in these Popes times who lived under Pagan Emperors nor a Law to forbid the People to conspire against their Bishops which yet Calixtus cites in his second Epistle Moreover Antherus cites a long Passage word for word out of S. Hierom's Epistle to Heliodorus Pope Lucius is made to use as Labbé confesseth the Words of his Successor Agatho in the Sixth Council of Constantinople 300 years after And yet Bellarmin cites this place of the Forged Epistle twice to prove the Pope's Infallibility Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l 4. c. 3. de Verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 5. Pope Sixtus the Second His first Epistle is stollen most of it out of Ithacius and Varimadus who lived many Ages after him In Eutychianus's first Epistle there are two whole Pages transcribed out of his Successor Pope Leo's 97th Epistle And Gains his Decretal Epistle steals two large Passages from the same Pope Leo's twelfth Sermon on the Passion and his 97th Epistle Finally whosoever will take pains to observe Labbe's Margen shall find that he with great diligence hath marked in the Margen of all these Forged Epistles the very places of later Authors out of which they are stollen and transcribed by their cheating Composer who patcht them up together out of the Writings of S. Hilary S. Hierom Pope Leo Innocent Gelasius and Gregory c. who lived many years after all these Popes were
Theodoret's Baronius had better have owned it for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret but is not in Sozomen so rashly do Popes judge sometimes The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death which Theodoret doth affirm but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus his Conversion by S. Chrysostom but saith no more of him and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost and which probably S. Gregory himself never saw however Baronius knows nothing what was there written and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth which he could never know any thing of only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors Again 't is apparently partial in him where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French being wont to break their words to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World To confute which the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days are abundantly sufficient He takes it for a proof that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes probably into the East was complained of to the Pope being Uncanonically Ordained which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon as the proper Judges in that matter so that this Cause was not referred to him at all only he was desired to acquaint those with it who ought to determine that Point Moreover he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick because he complains of Nestorius for urging the Emperor to persecute Hereticks as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople But this Kingdom hath found Romanists when it was their Interest to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no Doth it not prove somebodie 's Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes To proceed It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome That it was the Ancient custom from the beginning for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions and the Pope only came in as his Second yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him which had been needless if the Pope alone or in conjunction with another Patriarch had been sufficient Again he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous yet from this Evidence he would prove That Cyril was Celestine ' s Legate in the Council of Ephesus But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing We may further note that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of S. Augustine's death he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints no Crucifix placed before him but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium to signifie the Mass here but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at putting the Body into the Grave in hopes of a joyful Resurrection But though nothing be more evident even in these Annals to a Judicious Reader than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship made by the modern Roman Church contrary to the Decrees of Councils the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers the Annalist a little after upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for Innovations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers Whereas we freely refer it to those Ancients to judge between us Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators I will only note That in this Epistle of Capreolus this Bishop calls the Emperor His Lord and his Son Upon which Baronius makes no Remark because he would have it thought that no Bishop but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor Son For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Connivance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Domesticks and he may find as great Defeats hapning often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part So true is that of Solomon No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him All things come alike to all c. Ecclesix 1 2. 'T is remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian cited for the Authority of the Seâ— of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick The love of our Country is an imperious thing yea a Tyrant which compels an Historian to defend those things which if they were said of another place he would utterly explode which with the rest there said is so applicable to the Cardinal as to Rome that the only wonder is he did not see how severe a Censure he as David once did upon Nathan's Parable here passeth upon himself Again he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread
The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks especially the Papacy while the See was full On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope who probably had got the Papey by this means yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor unless he die suddenly which is expresly contrary to the ancient Canons which the Notes can neither totally conceal nor fairly excuse But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times as the gross barbarity of the Style shews and 't is not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree 'T is certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment to fill up the Rent Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector for saying That Theodoric called this Synod whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction He saith indeed That after the Schism had lasted Three years which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498. Theodoric who then Ruled all at Rome called a Synod of Bishops and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair So that according to him no body called this Synod of the Editors nor was Symmachus yet Pope but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist and Cassiodorus shews that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death 13 or 14 years after For he saith That in his Consulship An. 514 he had united the Roman Clergy and People and restored the desired Concord to that Church So that 't is certain there was a Schisin at this time and long after The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher but Anastasius who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis King Theodoric's Visitor as an Invader of the Roman See But 't is no way probable this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing considering Theodoric to whose Arbitration they had submitted this and commended him for determining it by a Bishp was then at Rome in great glory loved and admired both by the Synod and People But the sport is Binius and Baronius do not agree whether this were a distinct Synod or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria however the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction we shall not interpose 'T is probable upon Theodoric's having declared Symmachus the true Pope his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes To cover which a Synod is patch'd up so full of Barbarisms False Latin and Non-sense that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus and the design of both is the same viz. to make us think that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery Besides the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus instead of Pompeius who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age joyned with Avienus as the Notes and Annalist confess who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine But it seems they scarce think so for these Acts say expresly The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric and own that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope who was the Criminal yea though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process If the whole were not fictitious I might note That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow First from S. Peter ' s Merit then following our Lord's Command and the Authority of General Councils The Period is not sense and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder and Baronius cites it with great Triumph Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts which in the next Sentence declare that Symmachus and his Bishops desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod Which the Annotator turns as if the King desired the Popes Letters and though he was an Arrian durst not call it without such Letters which Note is as false as it is impertinent For we see by Theodorus Lector That Theodoric did call the real Council And Zonaras saith Theodoric calling a Council rejected Laurentius and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus And they must be able to out-face the Sun who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod of which Baronius makes the two former to be only divers Acts is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul but the name of his Colleague is omitted which was Probus This makes it somewhat suspicious but the business of it confirms that Suspicion which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death wherein according to ancient Custom Basilius Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy was present with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy The first Law was That no Pope should be elected without the consent of the King of Italy then Lord of Rome The other That no Pope Bishop or other Clergy-man should alienate things given to the Church Which Laws they pretend to annul because they were both made by Lay-men and not subscribed by any Pope But first It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs by Advice of their Clergy and these were frequently confirmed in Synods Secondly These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae used by Basilius and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made some Bishops consenting to them Moreover the deceased Pope had directed the making these Laws And the Annotator who here objects They were made in the Vacancy of the See in another place saith The Roman Clergy well knew that when the Pope the visible Head of the Church was taken away it was their part by ancient Custom as the nearest Members to the Head and Administrators of Peter ' s Church to take care of the Vniversal Church Wherefore he cannot fairly deny but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their own Church And the bloody
and condemn them as such yea Anathematize them and is this only a point of Ecclesiastical Discipline May Hereticks and their Opinions be either condemned or not and is it an indifferent thing whether a Pope absolve and defend or accurse and condemn in such cases Surely the great name of de Marca is forged and put to this weak tract he would not have argued at this rate That the Acts of this Council were early translated into Latin for the use of the Western Church is probable enough but Vigilius needed not this Translation he had lived at Constantinople long before he was Pope and now six years together after he was Pope and so must understand Greek perfectly But the true reason why Vigilius Epistle was not added to these Latin Acts was because there was no such Epistle then invented For had he then writ such an Epistle or in six Months after it would certainly have been joyned to both the Greek and Latin Copies for all Mens satisfaction who were scandalized by his dissent especially if that which de Marca supposes had been thought true in those Ages viz. That the Decrees of a General Council were invalid without the Popes Confirmation But this is an Opinion of later Birth Whatever he saith in defence of the sincerity of the Latin Acts I agree to but since he borrows from Crakenthorp not only his Arguments but his conjectures also such as altering the name of Domnus into John c. I must believe the Author of this discourse had seen Crakenthorp's learned History of the fifth Council yet durst not own it because he could not confute it From the same Author he borrows much of what he says about condemning Origen's Opinions in this Council But since the Council was risen before Vigilius began to deliberate whether he should receive their Acts or no yea and their Acts as he thinks translated into Latin also how could Justinian after this send to the dissolved Council to know their Judgment of Origen and his Followers Therefore de Marca mistakes the point and the learned Crakenthorp solves this difficulty much better to which I refer the Reader And only will enquire how this Author and those Popes he cites could truly say that no matters of Faith were handled in this fifth Council if Origen and his Heretical Opinions were here condemned as he goes about to prove This is a manifest contradiction The Sense of those Popes and others must be no Points of Faith decided at Chalcedon were called in Question over again here For the Question only was whether the Opinions in the three Chapters were not condemned in the Council of Chalcedon And the fifth Council affirming this concerning the Opinions of three Persons did not as some feared decree any new or different point of Faith from the Council of Chalcedon It is a needless thing to offer conjectures about the reason why Vigilius in this Epistle doth not mention the condemning of Origen's Errors for the true reason is obvious which is Because the Forger of this Epistle had nothing in his Eye but to clear this Pope from the main thing he was charged with viz. defending three Heretical Chapters and that point he makes out I grant he had yet only joyntly with other Patriarchs and by following not leading Justinian condemned Origen before as Liberatus declares But I must note that Liberatus his telling us that so particularly and saying nothing of Vigilius his Epistle to condemn the three Chapters is a shrewd suspicion there was no such Epistle since Liberatus writ after Vigilius death and was a favourer of the three Chapters and writ all that he thought might disparage such as condemned them To conclude either the Authority of the Pope was not so considerable in those days as this learned Apologist fancies or Vigilius his carriage was such that no body enquired what side he was of after his so often turnings since he lived above two years after this Council and yet no mention in any genuine Writer is made where he was or how he carried himself to the time of his death which is said to have hapned in Sicily An. 555. So little a figure did the Roman Pontiff then make and when the Controversie was revived in the time of Pelagius the Second and Gregory the Great they chose to bury Vigilius name in silence his inconstancy to his Principles and evil Practices having made it the interest of the Roman Church to clap him under Hatches so long as his Character was remembred and this Apologist had better have followed their Policy than to raise him as he hath done only to his greater shame Books printed for and Sold by R. Clavel at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard THE Reasons of Praying for the Peace of our Jerusalem In a Sermon Preached before the Queen at White-Hall on the Fast-Day being Wednesday August 29. 1694. by Thomas Comber D. D. Dean of Durham and Chaplain in Ordinary to their Majesties Printed by Their Majesties Special Command A Daily Office for the Sick Compil'd out of the Holy Scriptures and the Liturgy of our Church with occasional Prayers Meditations and Directions The Catechism of the Church with proofs from the New Testament and some additional Questions and Answers divided into 12 Sections by Zach. â—shem D. D. Author of the Book lately published Entituled a Daily Office for the Sick with directions c. A Church Carechism with a brief and easie Explanation thereof for the help of the Meanest Capacities and Weakest Memories in order to the establishing them in the Religion of the Church of England by T. C. Dean of D. The Pantheon Representing the Fabulous Histories of the Heathen Gods and most Illustrious Heroes in a short plain and familiar Method by way of Dialogue for the Use of Schools Written by Fra. Pomey of the Society of Jesus Author of the French and Latin Dictionary for the Use of the Dauphin Bedae Venerabills opera Quaedam Theologica nunc primùm edita necnon Historica antea semel edita Accesserunt Egberti Archiepiscopi Eboracerifis Dialogus de Ecclesiasticâ Institutione Aldbelmi Episcopi Scireburnensis Liber de Virginitate ex Codice antiquissimo emendarus Disquisitio in Hypothesin Baxterianam de Foedere Gratin Ab initio deinceps semper ubique omnibus indulto adhuc apud Ethnicos extra-evangelicos vigente ac valente ad salutem Authore Carolo Robothamo Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbytero Norfolciensi S. Th. B. Q. Horatii Flacci Opera Interpretatione Notis Illustravit Ludovicus Desprez Cardinalitius Socius ac Rhetor Emeritus Jussu Christianissimi Regis in usum Serenissimi Delphini ac Serenissimorum Principum Burgundiae Andium Biturigum Huic Editioni accessere Vita Horatii cum Dacerii Notis ejusdem Chronologia Horatiana Praefatio de Satira Romona L. Annaei Flori rerum Romanarum Epitome Interpretatione Notis Illustravit Anna Tanaquilla Fabri Tilia Jussu Christianissimi Regis